Bigot-In-Chief

(Photo courtesy of Getty Images)

As anyone who's been following the race for the Republican nomination knows, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is the Tea Party's newest flavor of month- a fate so horrible it almost makes even me feel sorry for the noted homophobe. If the experiences of Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or Gingrich tell us anything, it's that cultivating Tea Party support as your base in this nomination contest only results in the media discovering and publicizing your bat-shit beliefs and/or your creepy-as-fuck life story, embarrassing you, and convincing your supporters to abandon you and flock to a similar candidate, who will inevitably meet the same fate shortly. Granted, maybe that wouldn't happen if the Tea Party actually decided to throw their support behind candidates that didn't have bat-shit beliefs or a creepy-as-fuck life story, but then they wouldn't be a Tea Party candidate, would they? *cough (Mitt Romney) *cough

Santorum is the latest victim of having his beliefs and policies scrutinized by the "liberal media" (the horror?! The media actually analyzing and reporting the beliefs of a viable candidate for the most powerful position in the world? HOW DARE THEY?!?!), and his homophobia is Item #1 on the laundry list of reasons that Santorum is just as strange and out of sync with the country as any of his predecessors on the Tea Party pedestal, evidenced by this interview with Piers Morgan (courtesy of CNN):

The cornucopia of faulty logic and cognitive dissonance displayed by Santorum in this interview is almost so immense that it's too intimidating even for a lover of argument such as myself to attempt to dissect and pinpoint all of the many ways in which his reason (or lack thereof) errs on the issue of marriage equality, but given the importance of this issue to myself personally and to the society as a whole, I will attempt it nonetheless. For clarity's sake, I'll break the main flaws in Santorum's "argument" (although that word seems to be a generous description to the bigoted drivel he spews) down into five bullet points:

1. Early in the interview, Santorum acknowledges to Morgan that just because he considers something to be "morally wrong or sinful," it doesn't "necessarily rise to the level that government should be regulating that activity." Here, Santorum is accepting the logic behind the separation of church and state which has been a cornerstone of political philosophy for the past 350 years, since the Wars of Religion which devastated Europe following the Protestant Reformation. It's telling of Santorum that observers might actually be pleasantly surprised that he would consent to such a common-sense and basic aspect of our political system, but in so doing he is already conceding his entire argument against same-sex marriage which, at its core, is based entirely on religious premises. As Ron Paul often points out in the Republican debates (though his fanatical federalism prevents him from coming to the right conclusion on this issue, as on so many others), civil marriage is nothing but a contract between two people, entitling both parties to certain rights and responsibilities with regards to each other. Consenting to such a contract with someone does however carry a special social significance, as it is a sign of your commitment to and trust of the person who you consent to it with. If Santorum's opposition to marriage equality is not based on the premise that it's legality would be governmental endorsement of something he regards as a "sin," then what is it based on?

2. I'm as surprised as anyone to learn that I'm a better Catholic than Rick Santorum, but the Church doesn't say that homosexuality "is a sin," per se (they do say that it's "disordered"). Now don't get me wrong in any way- I'm not endorsing the Church's position- I think that it is also utterly backwards, even if more nuanced than Santorum's. The Church teaches that being gay is not a sin, but that any sex outside of marriage IS a sin, thus, since the Church doesn't allow gay people to marry their soulmate, their having sex is necessarily a sin. Many a Catholic homophobe fail to realize that, according to the Church's teaching, two gay lovers having sex outside of marriage is no more immoral than two straight lovers having sex outside of marriage. Moreover, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies... must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (2358). I wonder if Santorum's past comparisons of gay sex to polygamy and bestiality qualify as "respect, compassion, and sensitivity"?

3. Later in the interview, Santorum (again, confusing his position on homosexuality with that of the Catholic Church) asks Morgan and his audience whether the Bible and the Catholic Church are bigoted. Well... yes, but not as much as Santorum himself is (at least the Church isn't- the Bible tells us to do such things as stone harlots and never shave our sideburns, so, really, who in the 21st Century should actually take seriously what it says about homosexuality?). As John Mattras beautifully points out on CathNewsUSA.com, the Church is hardly consistent in its political activity to "defend the sanctity of marriage":

"If marriage needs to be defended from modern adaptations, what is the church doing to outlaw civil divorce and remarriage? Where is the political mobilization to prevent avowed adulterers like Hugh Hefner and Charlie Sheen, who flout notions of marital fidelity, from obtaining civil marriage licenses? How vigorously is the church calling for constitutional amendments and voter referenda to confirm, or deny, these modern versions to an institution once considered irrevocable, eternal and exclusive?... Is there any rational basis, either from the experience of states and countries where same-sex marriages are legal or from peer-reviewed studies, that marriage equality has or will diminish marriages between heterosexuals? Isn't the Church taking special aim at society's growing acceptance and recognition of same-sex marriages and, more fundamentally, homosexuality?"

4. Santorum claims that it is bigotry itself for one to call devout, homophobic Christians "bigoted." Given that the the Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations ARE bigoted in their singling out of homosexuals for political opposition, as I just pointed out, this logic just seems utterly backwards. Refusal to tolerate intolerance IS intolerance??? One has to give it to Santorum- it takes a peculiar genius to make such an ignorant and plainly illogical argument with a straight face.

5. In defending his rigid interpretation of Christianity, Santorum is right for a change when he tells Morgan that the truth doesn't change- either homosexuality has always been wrong and a sin or it hasn't. The truth, of course, is that it hasn't. The desert tribes who recorded the Bible were far more ignorant and less civilized than we are today, as should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty. We learned from theirs and other ancient societies' mistakes and have built a civilization far more tolerant, dynamic, and loving than theirs ever could have hoped to be. The only thing that prevents our society from becoming even more perfect in this happiness and tolerance is the unfortunate and persisting influence that the worst of those tribes continue to have on weak-minded but powerful men like Santorum.